Tuesday, April 19, 2011

What Governor Jan Brewer Should Do With the Arizona Vetting and Eligibility Bill She Just Vetoed

By: Mario Apuzzo, Esq.April 19, 2011

We all know by now that Governor Jan Brewer on April 18, 2011, vetoed Arizona’s historic vetting and eligibility bill that passed both Houses of government. But I have not heard the Governor offer any solution to the problem of assuring the integrity of the state and federal electoral process.

Governor Brewer should simply advise the Arizona legislature what her problems are, e.g., she says they are circumcision documentation (just one of the listed documents) in place of a birth certificate should the latter document not be available and the role of the Secretary of State to make sure the candidate meets the eligibility requirements, and ask them to modify the language or take it out of the law. The legislature can then resubmit the bill. That is how simple it is.

Governor Brewer also needs to understand that the federal government has not legislated in this area of vetting and confirming eligibility of presidential and vice-presidential candidates for state electoral ballot placement. Hence, at present, some unknown person is de facto fulfilling the role which would be legally given to the states’ Secretary of States.

She also needs to understand that the Constitution and case law give the states appropriate powers over the state election process which also necessarily impact on presidential and vice-presidential candidates' ability to be placed on state election ballots.

Hence, the federal government has left it up to the states to address the ballot vetting issue and would expect them to do so, provided their vetting means are reasonably in keeping with constitutional eligibility ends which are “natural born Citizen,” age 35 years old, and U.S. resident for 14 years.

Governor Brewer also needs to understand how important the Arizona legislation is not only to Arizona but to the rest of the nation. History has shown that when one acts others will follow. Here, vetoing this bill without offering a solution has caused great damage to the efforts of others to bring integrity to the electoral process involving the president and vice-president.

The lack of federal law in this area has caused the national constitutional crisis involving putative President Barack Obama II. It is totally irresponsible and contrary to her oath to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution for Governor Brewer to simply veto this legislation without offering a solution. Governor Brewer and the Arizona Legislature need to get together and iron out the impediments, whether real or imagined, to this much needed legislation.

41
comments:

Of course you are right. But, it ain't gonna happen. This woman is in the tank like so many others, and from what I've read the leaders in the AZ legislature don't have the stomach to override her veto.

I will simply be shocked if any of these state efforts are passed in any way that is effective. Something is going on that is clearly not apparent.

Looks to me like Trump is the only hope that this issue will get the needed attention, and I have serious misgivings that he's going to get it done.

Trump needs to be furnished with a copy of Miki Booth's long-form birth certificate that she recently got. It is dated March 15, 2011 with the stamp of Alvin Onaka, the state register. There is also another lady out there who has been able to obtain a long-form birth certificate from Hawaii in recent days. She should also send it to Trump. Trump can knock any liberal reporter on their feet if he simply holds up one these birth certificate when pressed with claim that Obama released his.

A much more reasoned response than mine which was simply "Jan Brewer is a gutless wonder". I took a look at the Arizona Constitution and it doesn't define the duties of the Secretary of State. The Arizona Constitution actually leaves the defining of those duties up to the Legislature - Article 5, Section 9 states in it's entirety "The powers and duties of secretary of state, state treasurer, attorney-general, and superintendent of public instruction shall be as prescribed by law."

Has Trump acknowledged that citizens are either natural or naturalized? Barry told the truth. "I am a native born citizen of the U.S." - a Title 8 naturalized citizen. Those in Arizona must ask about Brewer's motivations. Is she not up for election in 2012?

Interesting to note that the Obots claim that 'native' born is the same as 'natural' born.

So when they argue that the children of diplomats and enemies are exempt from being native/natural born, it won't work for them, because 'native' born means born on the soil & born on the soil means precisely that.

It is impossible for one born on the soil to be not born on the soil because of the status of someone else.

It is therefore impossible for 'native' to have the same meaning as 'natural'.

The vetting of the presidential candidate was done apparently by Pelosi, a Democrat member!! What kind of vetting do you expect from someone who belongs to the same party than the running president like it was the case with Obama?!!!!Conclusion: there has NOT been any vetting of any kind done concerning Obama's eligibility to be president of the USA!! That is the reality!

Moreover, Obama has a foreign background (he lived in Indonesia), not only by the life he lived but also by his father who was a Kenyan (under British rule at the time).For all these reasons, Obama needs a very thorough and special vetting, something that was never done before for any president of the USA because they did not have such a background (except for John McCain).

More, I have the very strong feeling that what happened in the case of Obama is the following.He was born in Kenya. His mother called her American parents and she asked them to put an ad on the newspapers declaring his birth in the USA and that she will come back very soon to the USA a little bit after Obama was born in Kenya.This way, it would be very easy to make it appear that the birth was done in the USA when in fact it actually happened in Kenya. Obama probably stayed in Kenya only a very short time (a few days) after his birth, very quickly moving back to the USA.

The two newspaper birth announcements were generated by the Hawaii Department of Health, not by the family of newborn babies. The announcements were done as a matter of routine.

I hope that the public learns this bit of information and stops saying that the family placed the birth announcement in the two newspapers.

Also, the birth announcments do not prove a birth in Hawaii. We do not know what evidence supports an Obama Hawaiian birth registration, saying that Obama was born in Hawaii. The evidence of any such registration needs to be examined given that there exists evidence that Obama was born in Kenya.

The best evidence of a Hawaiian birth would be the long-form, hospital generated birth certificate, which contains the name of the birth hospital and name and signatures of the delivery doctor and other witnesses to the birth, along with medical confirmation from Kapi'olani Hospital that Obama was in fact born there. This is the medical evidence that Obama is preventing the American public from seeing.

"Hence, at present, someone unknown person is de facto fulfilling the role which would be legally given to the states’ Secretary of States."

I don't think that is quite right. The SecStates did confirm eligibility during the last election and they will in the next one. It's just that the only document required to prove eligibility is an affidavit from each Party stating that their candidate is eligible. Interestingly Brewer said when she vetoed the bill that she didn't think it was right to vest such power in one person. That that person could be partisan for purely political reasons. But that ignores the fact that the SecState already has had that authority! One wondrs if Brewer knows how the names of national candidates are put on the ballot.

I think Mario makes a good point about rewriting the bill to remove those documents (baptismal record, circumcision record) from the list that apparently offended Brewer. In fact, I think the bill would be stronger without those ancillary documents. The only document that should be included to prove birth in the US would be the long-form birth certificate. And if Obama does not have this document, then that would just be too bad, as he would not be able to meet the requirement.

Of course, the bill would be strongest if it also required documents proving the US citizenship of the parents at the time of the birth of the candidate.

Someone just sent me the following letter from his Congressman. Now we are being told that Obama met the citizenship requirements as set for by the State Department. That is a new one. Here is the letter:

April 19, 2011

Thank you for contacting me to express your thoughts regarding President Obama's eligibility to hold the office of the president.

President Obama's citizenship has been called into question. Folks have filed lawsuits challenging the President's status as a natural born citizen and alleging he is ineligible to serve as the President of the United States. In June 2008, a digitally scanned image of the President's birth certificate was released, and its authenticity was verified.

The Office of the President should be respected irrespective of its occupier. While I disagree with the President's policies and the direction he is taking our country, I believe he has satisfied the citizenship requirements set forth by the State Department and is eligible to serve as President.

Thank you again for contacting me to express your thoughts regarding President Obama. Please continue to keep me informed of the issues that are important to you and be sure to visit my website, womack.house.gov. for more information and to sign up for my newsletter. Sincerely, Congressman Signature Congressman Steve Womack Member of Congress

We were told by some of the Secretary of States and courts that heard the issue that a Secretary of State has no duty to do anything in particular when it comes to determining whether a presidential candidate is eligible for that state's electoral ballot.

Everyone keeps forgetting that we don't need an eligibility law on the books. The Sec of State in each jurisdiction is ALREADY responsible for certifying candidates. In California, for sure, and probably elsewhere as well, Sec of State has multiple times requested birth certificates of questionable candidates and kept them off the ballot.

All we need is a courageous Sec of State and a Governor willing to back his/her play. One Sec of State willing to keep Obama off the ballot because his father was not a US citizen. Then standing in court will no longer matter, the question of what is an nbc will finally get a hearing because Obama will have standing to challenge the Sec of State in court.

My question to you Mr. Apuzzo, is this. Are primaries strictly a "party" function? Could a Sec of State lawfully bar a candidate from a primary for eligibility reasons or must he/she wait for the general election?

Here is a copy of my letter recently sent to The Trump Organization and to the AZ Governor Jan Brewer as well as AZ Speaker of the House Kirk Adams urging these latter two to get together on a simple, Constitutional bill for proving Presidential/Vice Presidential eligibility.

In her recent letter to The Trump Organization, “drkate”, the originator of the website “drkatesview”, offered a forthright and compelling discussion of the eligibility issue in her “We Write With Urgency ...” letter, q.v..

Here is some insight for both The Trump Organization and those involved in the recently-vetoed AZ House Bill 2177 battle - and other states. There are some vital points that many seem to miss; to wit:

WE ALREADY KNOW THE LEGAL DEFINITION OF THE TERM-OF-ART “natural born Citizen”!! There is a Supreme Court opinion clearly stating the definition. An interesting point is that even the known-forged documents on the internet identified collectively as the COLB documents (which are products of felonious criminal document fraud presented by Obama supporters) show that the man currently occupying our highest office is not eligible to do so since he does not fit the actual “nbC” definition as even these fraudulent documents (pushed by his supporters as valid) show since his father is Kenyan, an alien.

While it is true that the term of art “natural born Citizen” appears only once in the Constitution of the United States of America that does not at all mean, as stated below in Minor v. Happersett, that we lack a legal, definitive, and understandable description of the term.

The 1875 Supreme Court opinion in Minor v Happersett:

“The Constitution does not in words say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first. “ (emphasis added)

The Supreme Court opinion referenced above completely specifies the definition for all to see except, perhaps, those who have some reason not to. The opinion, never overturned, says that the certain definition of the term “natural born Citizen” is a child born in America of two parents who were themselves citizens. It also says that of any other definition “... there have been doubts ...”. This CLEARLY says that the 2-citizen-parent-born-on-US-soil definition is and has always been the undisputed definition of the “nbC” term of art - and the above opinion shows this.

So listen up you states working on the so-called “birther bills!! You should include as little verbiage as possible in your bills and require the Secretary of State to merely obtain valid legal proof (such as a certified copy of the elements of eligibility) comporting with Article 2, Section 1, Clause 5 by using the above Minor definition of the “nbC” legal requirement as being the undoubtedly known-correct definition. Offering other options of “proof” such as circumcision records, etc. is not only a distraction and unnecessary but it offers an easy excuse to reject the bill whereas emphasizing the Constitutional requirement is not in any way in conflict with the Constitution. The bill could even include the requisite wording from Minor if the SOS needed guidance and that requires no judgmental decision by the SOS other than reading the valid legal copy of the original birth certificate.

Presidential eligibility is not a right but a privilege and that privilege is extended to only those who meet the Constitutional “elements of eligibility” in A2S1C5. Any candidate not meeting those requirements is no less a citizen but should be rejected for candidacy by the SOS as being unresponsive to the State law. Should the candidate then wish to press his interest further using a definition Minor indicates is a description for which “... there have been doubts ...” he is welcome to do so by litigating against the state law using the Minor definition for eligibility. Note that the Minor definition is really the Vattel definition but not named as such.

The idea of using the known-correct definition of “nbC” is on solid legal ground with Supreme Court opinion to back it up. Any submission attempting the use of a definition which is “in doubt” is then in the position of having the burden of proof of its “novel” definition. Such an issue should immediately be forwarded by the State to SCOTUS which as its own rules state would have original jurisdiction in such a case (assumption of current candidates here meaning that the US DOJ would bring the suit against the state).

Also, if submitted to SCOTUS for original jurisdiction, there should be an accompanying insistence for recusal of justices (if any) that may have been appointed by any candidate (when acting as President) involved in the rejection at issue since they would have - at the very least - an appearance of impropriety if not an actual financial or other conflict. Such justices should play no part in any discussions/conferences involving the action.

=================

I see no reason why all states could not adopt similar bills to prevent the present debacle from recurring. Under this bill even Obama, Bobby Jindal, Marco Rubio, and even the Ahnold the Governator could bring suit to try to squeese in and force the issue until SCOTUS decides to get real!!!

The biggest issue that Americans have currently concerning Obama's eligibility is that 99.9% of the American people does not know that BOTH parents of the President MUST be Americans in order for the President to meet fully the 2 conditions related to the definition of a natural born citizen [1) the president must be born in the US; 2) the president must be born of parents who are BOTH American citizens.]

If the American people knew this second condition, we would not even bother having the current discussion on whether or not Obama was born in Hawaii!! We would go directly to the request to have Obama out of office IMMEDIATELY because he is not eligible to be President of the USA because he does not meet for sure the second condition to be a natural born citizen!!

Another big issue. You can be sure that the many Democrats who work at the department dealing with birth certificates in Hawaii have already created a "perfect" forgery for Obama concerning his birth certificate!!Therefore, the issue is not to be shown the long form birth certificate, it is to make sure that this long form birth certificate (if he is ever produced?!!) has been thoroughly checked directly with the original long form birth certificate held by the Department dealing with birth certificates at Hawaii. This checking must be done under the supervision of several parties, among them Republicans. This checking relates to using various techniques to detect a forged document.

I wait the Corsi book that should appear very soon. See "Where's the Birth Certificate?: The Case that Barack Obama is not Eligible to be President [Hardcover]Corsi Jerome (Author)" at http://www.amazon.com/Wheres-Birth-Certificate-Eligible-President/dp/1936488299/ref=sr_1_fkmr0_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1303329337&sr=8-1-fkmr0 This book should raise more questions about Obama's lack of eligibility!!

Kenyan-born US Senate hopeful, Barrack Obama, appeared set to take over the Illinois Senate seat after his main rival, Jack Ryan, dropped out of the race on Friday night amid a furor over lurid sex club allegations. ......."

Governor Abercrombie continues to make a fool out of himself and confirm what I said that Obama has made a laughing stock out of the United States and its leaders. Consider this gem as documented by Don Fredrick, author of The Obama Timeline:

Hawaii Governor Neil Abercrombie is asked by a reporter to clarify what he meant by “he was there” when Obama was born—a statement ridiculed by Donald Trump. Abercrombie responds, “I was here in Hawaii.” Reporter: “You were here in Hawaii, not in the [delivery] room obviously.” Abercrombie: “Look, you know, let’s, let’s be serious, and it, it, uh, it is simply reprehensible to have this kind of conversation, uh, insulting someone’s mother and father speaks about the person who is doing it.” Abercrombie claims he first saw the infant Obama just “days after he was born” when his parents brought him to the University of Hawaii campus. “We not only saw him and were with them but were introduced to him of course at our gatherings, our student gatherings. And, uh, of course over the years then, uh, as he was raised buy his mother and his grandparents, uh, we of course saw him frequently because he was, he was with his grandfather all the time.” (There are several problems with Abercrombie’s story. Abercrombie purportedly told long-time friend Mike Evans he first met Obama when he was playing T-ball at age 5 or 6—not as an infant. Further, although Obama’s father, Obama, Sr. attended the University of Hawaii in the fall of 1961, his mother, Stanley Ann Dunham, was attending the University of Washington and, in August 1961 visited her friend Susan Blake in Seattle to show off her new baby. By the time Dunham returned to the University of Hawaii, Obama, Sr. had already left for Harvard. It was therefore impossible for Abercrombie—or anyone else—to have seen Obama, Jr. with his parents at “student gatherings” in Hawaii because mother and baby were in Seattle. In researching The Obama Timeline, this author interviewed former students of the University of Hawaii who knew Barack Hussein Obama, Sr. quite well. None of them ever heard of Stanley Ann Dunham; none of them ever saw Obama, Sr. with a woman with that name; none of them believed he was married to anyone other than a woman in Kenya; and none of them ever saw him with an infant son or were told he had a new child. Abercrombie is lying.)"

Some believe that if a state law were to define the term natural born citizen, an opponent could argue that no state has the authority to interpret the U.S. Constitution and that only the Supreme Court can do so. I disagree with this line of thinking.

First, the U.S. Supreme Court has provided plenty of statements on the meaning of a "natural born Citizen." I have cited the many decisions at this blog. Hence, a state has to only cite those cases and other historical evidence as support for its decision on what a "natural born Citizen" is. In short, the State would not be making up anything. It would be relying on the U.S. Supreme Court.

Second, if a state can decide whether a presidential candidate is 35 years old and has been a resident of the U.S. for at least 14 years, why can it not also decide whether that candidate is a "natural born Citizen?"

I am not saying that someone could not sue a state for its definition of a "natural born Citizen." What I am saying is that the state would be on solid legal grounds. Of course, the courts would have to ultimately decide the outcome. In such event, we would at least have the issue briefed in a court and maybe the U.S. Supreme Court might even take such a case.

You asked: "My question to you Mr. Apuzzo, is this. Are primaries strictly a "party" function? Could a Sec of State lawfully bar a candidate from a primary for eligibility reasons or must he/she wait for the general election?"

This is an interesting question. I will answer the question without doing any research on the question. I say that our elections have to be geared to making sure that the voters are protected to the maximum degree. A primary election is very important to voters, for each party decides who it will run in the general election. Hence, voters need protection in primary elections, too. It is my conclusion, therefore, that Secretary of States also have an important role in making sure from a ministerial aspect who gets on those primary ballots. This is the same role that he or she would have in the general election.

Again, if any candidate feels violated, resort to the courts is available and should be made as easy as possible so that a quick decision may be rendered.

I think you missed my point. I'm sure there is no Federal requirement for them to check eligibility. I also don't know the specific laws for each state concerning the duties of the SecState vis a vis accepting names for the ballots. What we do know is that each Party sent an affidavit to all 50 states stating the eligibility of their candidate. All 50 SecStates accepted those affidavits as prima facie evidence that the candidates were eligible. So they all did take affirmative action concerning the question. It's just that their action was extremely weak. We do know who "vetted" the candidates, the chairmen of the Parties.

I think you missed my point. If all this wonderful vetting occurred with Obama, why are we three years later still arguing about where he was born? Why are books being written about where his birth certificate is? Why are you and I even still discussing this issue?

RE; Obama's Arizona nomination declaration."A common law misdemeanor which would amount to perjury except that it is not committed in a judicial proceeding; the giving of a false oath in connection with some proceeding or matter in which an oath is required by law.A "false oath" is a willful and corrupt sworn statement made without sincere belief in its truthfulness." Perkins & Boyce, Criminal Law 511 (3rd ed. 1982). Thus, the giving of a false oath in an affidavit used to obtain a marriage license will not support a charge of perjury because it is extrajudicial but it will support a charge of false swearing which is a separate offense. 3 S.W. 662, 664. Many jurisdictions now have statutes proscribing false swearing. Model Penal Code §241.2. Other statutes group perjury, false swearing, and "making false written statements" together as different degrees of the same crime, often called loosely "perjury." See, e.g., N.Y. Penal Law Art. 210, et seq."

There has been a lot of chatter (not necessarily here) about the nbc definition and how it would apply to single moms and kids who don't know who their father is. There has been some talk that family units have "evolved" and that the definition of nbc should also. I disagree.

When Vattel wrote the law of nations and when the founders relied on it was during a period in history when women really didn't have much standing. Most citizenship laws involved only the father. In a legal environment that tended to ignore women, these men went out of there way to make sure to include women. That it was of such tantamount importance that a President be unfettered from obligations to other nations that they demanded BOTH parents be citizens.

It would have been standard to simply follow the father's status, but they went out of their way to include the mothers. And since every child has a biological mother and a father, a child who doesn't know who his father is would be unqualified to be President because his status as an NBC would be unknown.

I found this bit of information interesting. The question of whether Obama is a "natural born citizen" was asked on Answers.Ask.com and here is the answer:

"Is barack obama a natural born citizen? - Answers.Ask.comBarack Obama is a natural born citizen of the United States of America. He was born in Honolulu, Hawaii. President Barack Obama is 100% American. see the full pagehttp://answers.ask.com/Society/Other/is_barack_obama_a_natural_born_citizen. "

What is interesting in this answer is that it says that Obama is "100% American." It therefore appears that the person who wrote the answer recognizes that a "natural born Citizen" needs to be "100% American."

The problem with the answer is, however, that Obama is not and cannot be "100% American" because, even if he was born in Hawaii, he was still born to a father who was a British citizen which by descent (jus sanguinis) also made Obama born a British citizen. If Obama was born a British citizen also, it is not logically possible that he is "100% American."

The entire argument of the anti-constitutionalists or revisionists relies on a core absurdity.There is little if any argument that opposes the common sense fact that the framers used NBC as a security measure to ensure security of the office of POTUS from ANY foreign influence, persuasion and claim, to the highest degree they could imagine.In light of the fact that the framers studied and understood the Vattel's principles on the subject of NBC, there is no doubt that this is the case."father of President John Quincy Adams, recorded in his Diary on Feb. 1, 1763, that after spending the day frivolously, instead of reading and thinking, ``The Idea of M. de Vattel indeed, scowling and frowning, haunted me.'' In 1765, Adams copied into his Diary three statements by Vattel, ``of great use to Judges,'' that laws should be interpreted according to the intent of the author, and every interpretation which leads to absurdity should be rejected."http://east_west_dialogue.tripod.com/vattel/id3.html

At least people understand that the President should be 100% American.

Even if a person is born in the country to citizen parents, are he/she fully a NBC? Isn't there more to it? Would people have voted for Mr. Obama if they fully realized his unAmerican attitude?

Mr. Obama may be biologically 100% American and he may have been born somewhere in the United States. We don't know.

However, we do know that he wasn't raised wholly as an American and his attitudes are not 100% American. He claims a foreign born father whom he never knew and who was never even US resident. (Or Ayers claimed it for him and he can't do anything about it now.) And Mr. Obama acts more like a third world dictator than any previous president that I am aware of, and seems to favor people of that stripe.

At the time the Constitution was written, born in the country to citizen parents would most likely imply raised in the country. That is not necessarily the situation today.

Wasn't Woodrow Wilson also raised mostly in Europe and didn't he have a dictatorial style and little respect for the Constitution?

A child born to a single American Citizen mother, on US Soil, is a natural born Citizen. The Child would owe no allegiance to the country of any alien father in such a situation, since there is no legal tie to the mother. The Country of the Alien father could likewise demand no allegiance w/o the legal tie to the mother.

There are only a few states that require that the Nomination Certificates proclaim that the Candidate be "Constitutionally Qualified" for the office they seek (Hawaii being one). Just about all merely claim that the Candidate is "Duly Nominated", which was exploited by the Treasonous Political Parties. A simple qualification by the states that would require the Certificates say "Constitutionally Qualified" would remove any gray are for the lawyers in the Parties to hide behind, and reduce the need for "Birther Bills", although they are good ideas anyway.

Governor Brewer does not want at all to find any solution of any kind on Obama's lack of eligibility and on the way to double-check Obama's eligibility, she just wants this issue to disappear altogether!! Quite a few Republicans have the false idea that it is highly detrimental to the Republican cause to discuss Obama's lack of eligibility!

Quite a few Republicans are like Governor Brewer at the moment on Obama's lack of eligibility. But it will not last, as when Corsi's book is going to become available, that is when it will all start full speed I could say! As people will start to strongly ask for the full truth to be uncovered!! Even the Republicans will ask for the full truth at that time after Corsi's book is out!Moreover, Donald Trump is not going to give up on this issue anytime soon!

On Sunday, Rev. Franklin Graham told ABC’s “This Week with Christiane Amanpour” that Mr. Obama "has some issues to deal with," referring to proving that he is a U.S. citizen.

Rev. Graham told ABC: "He can solve this whole birth certificate issue pretty quickly." "I was born in a hospital in Asheville, North Carolina, and I know that my records are there. You can probably even go and find out what room my mother was in when I was born. I don't know why he can't produce that."

Rev. Graham's family has served as spiritual advisers to numerous prominent political figures.

He also said that Donald Trump, who has also raised the question about Obama's place of birth, might be his candidate of choice in 2012.

The White House has denounced Rev. Graham for his position. Read the story herehttp://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2011/04/white-house-calls-rev-grahams-comments-on-the-president-preposterous.html

Uhhh - NO!!! Taking your second point first, "Constitutionally Qualified" would settle nothing at all and is basically what we now have ... a morass of mischief which provides a veritable breeding ground for those inclined.

Even the upcoming State "birther bills" fail in this regard since most of them merely state the candidate must prove he is a "natural born citizen" without defining the term their own SOS is to depend upon in his decison. That's the same problem the Constitution itself has; a firm requirement of being a "natural born Citizen" with no further definition in that document.

Fortunately for us, we also have existing common law which DOES define the meaning of "nbC" in Minor v. Happersett and other decisions of SCOTUS. So, you see, further definition IS required and should be written into the State "birther bills" to eliminate the "misunderstanding".

On your first point about no pappy it is becoming increasingly clear that Barky was a bastard in the biblical sense. Had time stopped in 1961 he might have remained a simple bastard since there IS no marriage certificate.

Unfortunately for Barky, he became an Indonesian citizen and never repatriated and re-naturalized to be an American citizen when he snuck back into the country.

It seems the whole family is best described as a bunch of serial scofflaws. Barky is not only a bastard but he is - while holding an office he has never shown himself to be eligible for - also an illegal alien.

Perhaps we should call him "El Presidente Wetback" since we don't even know his real name let alone where he was born nor who his daddy is. The illegal alien status will eventually show up I'm sure and most of the MSM and his other defenders will say "so what"???

The Rules

THE RULES:

This blog does not advocate resort to any violence in order to bring about political change. Rather, what we advocate is resort to zealous use of one's First Amendment right to "freedom of speech, or of the press, or the right of the people to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

Please keep in mind this is a moderated blog. This is akin to a court setting and is not a wide open say anything you want, anytime you want, free speech zone like a soap box in a public square. If you want that type of forum you will have to go elsewhere. Keep your comments and questions in this blog's threads serious and focused on the subject and merits of this post. Unsubstantiated statements which are determined to be false and misleading, or even potentially misleading to others (the jury of public opinion reading this blog) as to the true facts, repetitive, argumentative, personal ad hominem attacks, defamatory statements, criticism or lobbying efforts for other attorneys and/or their cases, blog scrolling, advertising links, inappropriate links, disinformation campaigns, and/or off topic comments will likely not be posted. I also will not discuss in public specifics as to my planned tactics or strategies. I am the Judge in this blog and will rule on the merits, materiality, worthiness, etc., of all comments. My rulings on the acceptance or rejection of a comment are final. Please note that your comments will not appear immediately as I have to review them first. As I am busy working on various cases with my law practice, it may be several hours to 24 hours some days before your comment is reviewed and accepted and/or answered. Please try to stay on topic. The main focus of this blog -- the Obama Article II natural born Citizen eligibility issue and the historic Kerchner vs. Obama & Congress lawsuit. Thank you.